Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 16, 2003 I just went to the Drudge Report and he has a headline but no story yet that says... "EXCLUSIVE: SONY could lose SPIDERMAN license... Developing..." Anybody know what the hell this is? Well, it was just updated. Now it says... "EXCLUSIVE: SEALED PAPERS: MARVEL ASKS COURT TO REVOKE SONY'S 'SPIDERMAN' LICENSE... Developing..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted April 16, 2003 From what source? Drudge? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted April 16, 2003 I know that Marvel and Sony are in court for something or other wrt Spiderman, so it's more than likely the distribution license is a major point there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 16, 2003 SONY may be on the verge of losing its SPIDERMAN blockbuster franchise, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal, after MARVEL CHARACTERS INC. accuses the Japanese media giant of fraudulent inducement to make a contract and engaging in unfair competition. MORE Sealed court papers show MARVEL wants to revoke SONY's SPIDERMAN license, it has been learned. Both sides are set to square off on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Alexander Williams III. The first SPIDERMAN grossed $403,706,375. With a lucrative sequel pending, and a planned SPIDERMAN 3, the case has quickly become top draw on Litigate Lane. MORE MARVEL wants to revoke the SPIDERMAN license; MARVEL wants injunctive relief, and is asking the court to enjoin SONY from going forward with the SPIDERMAN license, insiders tell DRUDGE. The loss of SPIDERMAN could affect all of SONY's future financial plans for its U.S. entertainment company. MARVEL accuses SONY of literally kidnapping Spidey. MARVEL is not upset about the way SONY made the movies; it's about the way SONY is handling the merchandising. MARVEL retained merchandising rights but agreed to a joint venture for some of the SPIDERMAN merchandising, insiders say. In sealed papers, MARVEL says SONY should not continue advertising SPIDERMAN as a SONY character and marketing him as such through a constellation of SONY consumer products. SONY had courted MARVEL very aggressively to get the licensing rights and promised the merchandising joint venture would not interfere with the comic co's own merchandising. MARVEL is accusing SONY of doing everything it can to disassociate SPIDERMAN and MARVEL in the minds of retailers. MARVEL also feels SONY has wrongfully withheld several millions of dollars it is owed. Also from another site.... Tentatively agreeing to a motion filed by Daily Variety and the Los Angles Daily Journal, a judge has ruled to open the record in the licensing dispute between Marvel and Sony which was filed in February. Upon reviewing the documents, Judge Alexander Williams called the case “the mother of all contract suits.” According to Variety, Marvel was not opposed to the seal being broken, while Sony opposes the unsealing. According to the trade, the suit states that Marvel seeks to terminate its license agreement with Sony following the completion of Spider-Man 2, which is slatred for a 2004 release. The suit also filed claims against Sony for “cross-promoting” Spider-Man with other Sony features. Variety reported that the dispute between the companies began last fall when Sony became concerned that Marvel was using inappropriate accounting methods to lessen Sony of its share of payments from Marvel’s exploitation of Spider-Man. According to the trade, “Sony then withheld $1.5 million from a participation payment made to Marvel and announced it would begin an audit in January.” After that, Sony’s papers allege that Marvel attempted to force an unjustified renegotiation of the licene agreement. Sony also claims that Marvel executives have “repeatedly expressed their unhappiness with the 1999 license agreement, particularly their participation in the film's box office and home entertainment receipts.” Despite efforts to resolve the dispute privately, Sony alleges that Marvel filed an “inflammatory complaint” with sensitive and confidential documents attached as exhibits to force Sony to renegotiate. According to Variety, the two documents that Sony wants to keep sealed are the license agreement between Marvel and Sony over the Spider-Man character, and an internal marketing document, which, according to Sony, contains extremely detailed information about revenue projections and licensing rates for the first Spider-Man film. Variety reported that Sony feels that if this information is made public, it will jeopardize the studio’s ability to make licensing agreements on the sequel. At the original filing of the suit in February, Marvel said that the suit itself was not an attempt to stop production on the Spider-Man sequel, or to alter any merchandising or licensing deals that are in place. The news related to the suit against Sony comes at the same time the company is announcing it's biggest-ever licensing deal, this one centered around the upcoming Hulk movie coming from Universal. The move of Spider-Man back to the courtroom is almost fitting in a way, as it is where the marriage between Sony and Marvel began in the first place. When the deal between the two was announced in 1999, Sony CEO John Calley called Spider-Man the "jewel in the crown of Sony's franchise vision." Going back to the original agreement, it was announced in ’99 that, as part of the joint venture between Marvel and Sony, the studio would get merchandising rights, but Marvel would get the lion's share because it will also manufacture any Spider-Man toys through Toy Biz. According to the original Variety story in 1999: “Spider-Man's tortured journey to film began in 1985 when Marvel granted the defunct Cannon group the right to make a live-action Spider-Man movie. Those rights eventually landed with 21st Century film, which, strapped for cash, sold home video rights that were ultimately acquired by Sony and tv exhibition rights eventually picked up by Viacom. “In 1991 Carolco made a new agreement with Marvel, buying the rights with the intention that James Cameron would write, produce and direct. Cameron was reportedly paid $3 million, and he wrote a detailed treatment, but money troubles prevented Carolco from going forward. “Litigation began in 1993 among 21st Century, Carolco, Sony and Viacom. MGM entered the fray in 1994, having purchased rights from 21st Century and Carolco, both now bankrupt.” Marvel re-entered the Spider-Man rights picture in 1998 when it was emerging from bankruptcy, and claimed that it had the exclusive right to make a Spider-Man film and that all the rights claimed by the above parties had expired. From there, the battle went to court where all parties save Sony, were denied rights to the franchise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted April 16, 2003 In sealed papers, MARVEL says SONY should not continue advertising SPIDERMAN as a SONY character and marketing him as such through a constellation of SONY consumer products. SONY had courted MARVEL very aggressively to get the licensing rights and promised the merchandising joint venture would not interfere with the comic co's own merchandising. MARVEL is accusing SONY of doing everything it can to disassociate SPIDERMAN and MARVEL in the minds of retailers. I wasn't aware of this at all, but then, I'm quite ignorant of most mainstream media tucked away in my woodland dorm. Can anyone give an example of this? Because if so, whether it can be legally re-interpreted as such in the contract or not, it's simply not right to take someone else's character (that has been their character for over 35 years) and try and pass it off and promote it as your own. And personally, though I greatly enjoyed the film and Sam Raimi actually getting a major project, I can live quite happily without Spiderman 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Well this sucks...damnit Sony! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Whoa, you mean the Drudge Report has finally reported something LEGIT....someone archive that forever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
